|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#11 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 79
|
![]()
John,
GREAT SHOTS! I'm considering buying the 120-300 2.8 as I have found my 70-200 2.8 is a little short for baseball. I have a d-200 and I hope the sigma lens works as well on it. I also have a 1.4 teleconverter... Did you use your converter on these shots then? or did you take it off because it was to long? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
|
![]()
TWO2956,
I used the Sigma 1.4x TC for these photos. I can't honestly say if there is a performance difference between the Nikon version of the lens and the Canon so I can't help you there. Here is what I can tell you: The Sigma works very well. Focus may be a bit slow - by all accounts it suffers in comparison to Canon's 300mm 2.8 but that lens was twice the cost. The only other drawback is I get quite a bit of CA - it's not pronounced until you look at a large version of the photo. But, there really isn't another alternative. And, as you can see it can capture some great results. As for TC or no: There's no good answer to this one. Without the TC, the lens is tight (as I mentioned) but too short for decent outfield shots. I also don't like to make any changes near the field because of the dust so it's pretty much make the decision at the car and live with it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|